By: Lawrence Kelley
I received this post via mailing list from a preacher in WI named Whit Sasser. This really struck a chord with me because I see so many of my brethren who spend all their time in tearing down false doctrines and not as much reinforcing and teaching the doctrine of Christ. Though I understand the need for knowing about false doctrines, I also feel we need to be built up and encouraged. Consider the example of Jesus. He certainly was not afraid of confrontation. However, He dealt with it as it came up rather than spending all His time looking for it. (jle)
There was once a woman who knew many true doctrines and twice as many false ones. With one very notable exception (which we will return to later), she was aware of all the dangers, perils and pitfalls the faithful could encounter. Daily, she warned her children about the falsehoods in the media, the errors of the cults and the evils of drugs, sex, and rock and roll. Being dutiful children, they listened to their mother intently and learned to be afraid of almost everything. Unfortunately, as they grew to adulthood, they ceased to be active in the Lord's work and one even gave up going to church all together. One day in a conversation with a friend it finally dawned on her that there was one spiritual danger she had forgotten. The danger of defining your faith solely by opposing the things that are wrong. This she should have done, without forgetting that following Jesus is about pursuing what is good and right. The exhortation is for us to inspire our children to go after all that is good and true and beautiful with a holy zeal and love for righteousness. Let us teach them to stand against what is wrong, but more importantly, to strive for what is right.
P.S. If you would like to be added to brother Sasser's mailing list, send an email requesting such to wsasser@tds.net.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Are You Truly Sanctified?
By: Joshuah Ellis
Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see the good works of your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Along with the obvious application of this statement, there are some other elements that should be considered as well. The implication that is made by a command to let out lights shine is that there is an amount of darkness that needs to be acknowledged in our lives. Why would we need to shine like lights if we would not be noticed? How could we be noticed if there is no contrast between us and others? The fact is, there should be contrast. We were not told to let our lights shine so that we could blend in with our surroundings. We, as the Lord’s people, should stand out and be noticeable. We should be sanctified.
What exactly does it mean to be sanctified? We hear this word a lot but do we truly understand it? To be sanctified is to be set apart as something sacred or to be made holy. Paul tells the Corinthians that though they were sinners at one time, they had been sanctified in the name of Jesus (1 Corinthians 6:11). Similarly, we have been sanctified by the blood of Christ as well. However, it is something that has only been made possible for us. We have to uphold the principles of being sanctified or set apart. We cannot truly be set apart as holy if we are taking part in things of a sinful nature. Jesus said that we cannot serve God and mammon at the same time (Matthew 6:24). James even tells us that “friendship with the world is enmity with God” (James 4:4). We can clearly see, from the scriptures, that there is more to being sanctified than simply wearing the name tag of a Christian.
As Christians, we often speak about “the world.” We use the term “worldly” to describe those who are not focused on serving God but rather serving their own fleshly desires. In our common vernacular, to be likened with the world is something that many of us do not want, because of its close association to things of a sinful nature. Unfortunately, for many, to be sanctified is only something that is only mentioned as the action is more difficult to carry out. To truly be sanctified, there needs to be a clear distinction between the people of God and the people of the world. Are you doing all you can to make sure that there is no confusion as to whom you belong?
So how do we know if we are truly sanctified? To echo the words of Jesus, “by their fruits you will know them’ (Matthew 7:20). Sanctification is not mere a self proclaimed state of being, we must live it! Therefore, when we are tempted to cross over into areas that can be described, at best, as morally gray, stay away! It is not enough to stay just out of reach where sin is concerned. We must live as those who have been truly set apart. For some of us, this might mean that we need to surround ourselves with different people. For some we may have to drastically alter our lifestyles. Some of us may have some serious repenting to consider. What ever change needs to be made; it is my prayer that we will have the courage and desire to see it through.
Too often, in our spiritual lives, we forget that the opportunity for salvation is the gift and the rest is conditional. Make no mistake, we serve a God who loves us dearly and fiercely enough to sacrifice His perfect son for our sins (John 3:16). However, that does not cancel out the fact that we have to do our part. Living up to our call of sanctification is certainly part of that. Remember there are things that though they may be lawful are not helpful (1 Corinthians 6:12). Are you more concerned with the staying “technically sinless” or are you striving to serve God with all you have at all times?
Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see the good works of your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Along with the obvious application of this statement, there are some other elements that should be considered as well. The implication that is made by a command to let out lights shine is that there is an amount of darkness that needs to be acknowledged in our lives. Why would we need to shine like lights if we would not be noticed? How could we be noticed if there is no contrast between us and others? The fact is, there should be contrast. We were not told to let our lights shine so that we could blend in with our surroundings. We, as the Lord’s people, should stand out and be noticeable. We should be sanctified.
What exactly does it mean to be sanctified? We hear this word a lot but do we truly understand it? To be sanctified is to be set apart as something sacred or to be made holy. Paul tells the Corinthians that though they were sinners at one time, they had been sanctified in the name of Jesus (1 Corinthians 6:11). Similarly, we have been sanctified by the blood of Christ as well. However, it is something that has only been made possible for us. We have to uphold the principles of being sanctified or set apart. We cannot truly be set apart as holy if we are taking part in things of a sinful nature. Jesus said that we cannot serve God and mammon at the same time (Matthew 6:24). James even tells us that “friendship with the world is enmity with God” (James 4:4). We can clearly see, from the scriptures, that there is more to being sanctified than simply wearing the name tag of a Christian.
As Christians, we often speak about “the world.” We use the term “worldly” to describe those who are not focused on serving God but rather serving their own fleshly desires. In our common vernacular, to be likened with the world is something that many of us do not want, because of its close association to things of a sinful nature. Unfortunately, for many, to be sanctified is only something that is only mentioned as the action is more difficult to carry out. To truly be sanctified, there needs to be a clear distinction between the people of God and the people of the world. Are you doing all you can to make sure that there is no confusion as to whom you belong?
So how do we know if we are truly sanctified? To echo the words of Jesus, “by their fruits you will know them’ (Matthew 7:20). Sanctification is not mere a self proclaimed state of being, we must live it! Therefore, when we are tempted to cross over into areas that can be described, at best, as morally gray, stay away! It is not enough to stay just out of reach where sin is concerned. We must live as those who have been truly set apart. For some of us, this might mean that we need to surround ourselves with different people. For some we may have to drastically alter our lifestyles. Some of us may have some serious repenting to consider. What ever change needs to be made; it is my prayer that we will have the courage and desire to see it through.
Too often, in our spiritual lives, we forget that the opportunity for salvation is the gift and the rest is conditional. Make no mistake, we serve a God who loves us dearly and fiercely enough to sacrifice His perfect son for our sins (John 3:16). However, that does not cancel out the fact that we have to do our part. Living up to our call of sanctification is certainly part of that. Remember there are things that though they may be lawful are not helpful (1 Corinthians 6:12). Are you more concerned with the staying “technically sinless” or are you striving to serve God with all you have at all times?
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Who You Gonna Call?
October 30, 2007
3:02 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
The Yellow Pages are great! It is so easy to look things up that way and it doesn't matter what you need because it is all covered in one simple directory. If you need pizza, you can find a pizza parlor. If you need a doctor, a mechanic or a chiropractor, the contact information is all there in one place. All we need to know is what we need and who we need to talk to. The rest is practically done for us. It sounds so simple because it is. However, is this philosophy as simple when it is applied to spiritual needs and our ability/willingness to seek out the proper assistance? Many of us have had experiences, in our spiritual lives, when we have had trouble knowing who we should go to in order to solve a particular problem. However, we are truly blessed to have the Bible as a guide. By following the principles given to us by God we can have the correct answer to the question, ''who you gonna call?''
Anger and frustration are an unfortunate inevitability in our lives. It is certainly not a sin to be angered by something, but we should beware as anger can move us to sin (Ephesians 4:26). There are times, in all of our lives, when we just become irritated or angry at a certain situation. It is during these times of heightened emotional stress that it becomes easy to express that contempt verbally. So I ask, ''Who you gonna call when you are angry and have unkind things to say?'' The answer is simple--nobody. This principle is as simple as the saying, ''if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all,'' but is it also backed up by the Word of God. Paul exhorts the Ephesians to put all anger and evil speaking away from them (Ephesians 4:31). James even speaks of the importance of being slow to speak and slow to wrath (James 1:19). Frankly, speaking unkind words to or about other people is simply unprofitable and sinful (Ephesians 4:29).
There are also times when we, as the children of God, do not agree. Thankfully, we have a pattern that has been given to us by God that we may know how to handle such situations. Nevertheless, the question must be asked. ''Who you gonna call when you are offended by your brother?'' The Bible teaches what we should do, but many times, however, this is not what happens. I have observed that it is quite popular for people to state their grievances about the offending brother to everyone but the offending brother. This is sinful! Jesus is very clear in His instructions (Matthew 18:15-17). Don't complain about your brother or try to reason why he offended you to anyone other than him. If you are not going to do that, then keep quiet (Ephesians 4:29).
Let's face it, brethren. Sometimes we just need help. Unfortunately our society has attempted to train us to believe that the human race is supernaturally self sufficient, but that is not what God teaches (Philippians 4:13). Therefore, I ask, ''who you gonna call when you just need help?'' The answer is simple, but before we can see that, we need to admit to ourselves that we cannot always fix our own problems. We must first come to terms with the fact that we will need outside help. Once we do that, it becomes abundantly obvious that help is endless. Here on earth, we are so fortunate to always have a family with us. I am not speaking about our physical families, but our spiritual family who will gladly help us when the burdens of this life seem too heavy (Galatians 6:2). We are also fortunate enough to serve a God who has proved Himself to be faithful time and again (Matthew 7:7-1). Who better to call upon for help that our Heavenly Father.
Regardless of the connections that the title of this article may have with a popular 80's movie, it is severely important that we know who we're gonna call when we have problems in our spiritual lives and equally as important that we actually call upon the right person. When you think about it, it's as easy as using the Yellow Pages. All we have to do is follow the pattern that has been given to us in the New Testament and remember that when we are in doubt and don't know who to talk to, God is always there. God is always faithful.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Is It Really That Big of a Deal
October 16, 2007
11:44 a.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
I am a person who tends to let himself get caught up in the substantial work load that I bring on to myself. The next thing I know, I am stressed and irritable regarding other areas of my life. I know it may sound cheesy, but I have a new theme song. "So Small" by Carrie Underwood really got me thinking about what is really important. An excercise I have tried is to ask myself, when I am in the middle of a stressful situation, if this is going to matter in 20 minutes. The answer is usually no. I would love to know your thoughts on this. Are you like me in this respect or do you avoid making mountains out of grains of sand? Visit the Forum and let me know.
_____________________________
So Small
By: Carrie Underwood
What you got if you aint got love?
The kind that you just wanna give away
It's okay to open up
Go ahead and let the light shine through
I know it's hard on a rainy day
You wanna shut the world out
And just be left alone
Don't run out on your faith
Sometimes that mountain you've been climbing
Is just a grain of sand
What you've been out there searching for forever,
Is in your hands
When you figure out love is all that matters, after all
It sure makes everything else
Seem so small
It's so easy to get lost inside
A problem that seems so big, at the time
It's like a river that's so wide
It swallows you whole
While you're sittin round thinking about what you can't change
And worryin' about all the wrong things
Time's flying by, moving so fast
You better make it count, cause you can't get it back
Sometimes that mountain you've been climbing
Is just a grain of sand
What you've been out there searchin for forever
Is in your hands
Oh, When you figure out love is all that matters after all
It sure makes everything else
Seem so small
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
11:44 a.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
I am a person who tends to let himself get caught up in the substantial work load that I bring on to myself. The next thing I know, I am stressed and irritable regarding other areas of my life. I know it may sound cheesy, but I have a new theme song. "So Small" by Carrie Underwood really got me thinking about what is really important. An excercise I have tried is to ask myself, when I am in the middle of a stressful situation, if this is going to matter in 20 minutes. The answer is usually no. I would love to know your thoughts on this. Are you like me in this respect or do you avoid making mountains out of grains of sand? Visit the Forum and let me know.
_____________________________
So Small
By: Carrie Underwood
What you got if you aint got love?
The kind that you just wanna give away
It's okay to open up
Go ahead and let the light shine through
I know it's hard on a rainy day
You wanna shut the world out
And just be left alone
Don't run out on your faith
Sometimes that mountain you've been climbing
Is just a grain of sand
What you've been out there searching for forever,
Is in your hands
When you figure out love is all that matters, after all
It sure makes everything else
Seem so small
It's so easy to get lost inside
A problem that seems so big, at the time
It's like a river that's so wide
It swallows you whole
While you're sittin round thinking about what you can't change
And worryin' about all the wrong things
Time's flying by, moving so fast
You better make it count, cause you can't get it back
Sometimes that mountain you've been climbing
Is just a grain of sand
What you've been out there searchin for forever
Is in your hands
Oh, When you figure out love is all that matters after all
It sure makes everything else
Seem so small
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Do You Know Who's Watching?
September 24, 2007
1:17 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
In many instances, we, as individual members of humanity, can be found exercising extremes in our lives more than we can be found in a perfect balance. It is the ''all or nothing'' mentality, and I think it certainly applies to how we think we are perceived. For the most part, I feel that we like to think that either everyone on the planet is watching us or that nobody whatsoever is. Let me offer an example. If we are playing sports or any game for that matter and we do something that is difficult to do, or something that is rather extraordinary, we immediately look all around us like we are acknowledging our attentive audience. However, when we walk of the bathroom and walk fifty feet with a piece of toilet paper stuck to the bottom of our shoe, we immediately tear it off and keep walking as if nothing happened, choosing to believe that nobody saw our moment of embarrassment. Though I am not sure that these examples are always accurate as far as who is watching us, I am confident in saying that there is always someone who is.
Consider the relationship between a parent and a child. It is almost inevitable that little boys aspire to be just like their dads. In the same manner, daughters look up to their mothers. What does this mean? It means that parents are a great influence on their children. As Christians this carries even more weight as it is the parents' responsibility to raise their children in the ''training and admonition of the Lord'' (Ephesians 6:4). This means that on Sunday afternoon when the kids see dad turn off the baseball game and mom put down her book so that they can get ready for evening services, they are showing their children what is important. On the other hand, when parents schedule activities at times when the church assembles, this teaches their children that spiritual matters are only important as long as nothing better comes up. That is not what Jesus taught (Mark 12:30). This certainly does not apply only to the public assembly but to other spiritual matters as well. Parents, your children will only know to put God first if that is what you are teaching them. Are you aware that your children are watching you?
The fact that we need to be mindful of those who are watching us does not only apply to parents and their children. Think of the people with whom you are in regular contact on a daily basis. Do you consider the fact that they might have questions of a spiritual nature and don't know who they can ask? Do you realize that when you leave your spirituality at the church building you could be squandering an opportunity to share the gospel? When you think about that, someone's opportunity to escape spiritual death might be right in front of you. When we are at work or school and among our peers, it is easy to think that what we do doesn't matter or that it wouldn't make a difference any way. This, however, is not the attitude that God wants us to have. If it were, He would not have commanded us, ''let your light so shine before men, that they may see your works and glorify your Father in heaven'' (Matthew 5:16). Are you aware of who is watching you at work/school?
Thankfully, when we come home and are no longer under the pressure of trying to be an example to others, we can relax as there is no longer anyone watching us, right? Wrong! Let us not forget that even in the darkest solitude, we are still seen by God. I have often heard the scenario which asks if a person comes to a red light in the middle of the night with no one around, is he OK to run the light? Granted, the authorities may never know of this infraction, but God knows that you broke the law. We may think that in the secret corners of our lives, our private sins are of no consequence, but let us make sure that we know that these sins will not remain private forever. Jesus, as he prepares His disciples for persecution, tells them ''there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known'' (Matthew 10:26). Are you aware of who’s watching you when you are alone?
I seriously doubt there are many instances when everyone is watching you, and there are probably fewer when nobody is watching you. However, know that there is always somebody who is. It could be a child who is looking specifically to you for spiritual guidance. It could be a coworker or class mate who is looking for truth. Regardless of that, God is always watching you, hoping you that you will follow the path He has designed for you (Matthew 7:14).
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
1:17 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
In many instances, we, as individual members of humanity, can be found exercising extremes in our lives more than we can be found in a perfect balance. It is the ''all or nothing'' mentality, and I think it certainly applies to how we think we are perceived. For the most part, I feel that we like to think that either everyone on the planet is watching us or that nobody whatsoever is. Let me offer an example. If we are playing sports or any game for that matter and we do something that is difficult to do, or something that is rather extraordinary, we immediately look all around us like we are acknowledging our attentive audience. However, when we walk of the bathroom and walk fifty feet with a piece of toilet paper stuck to the bottom of our shoe, we immediately tear it off and keep walking as if nothing happened, choosing to believe that nobody saw our moment of embarrassment. Though I am not sure that these examples are always accurate as far as who is watching us, I am confident in saying that there is always someone who is.
Consider the relationship between a parent and a child. It is almost inevitable that little boys aspire to be just like their dads. In the same manner, daughters look up to their mothers. What does this mean? It means that parents are a great influence on their children. As Christians this carries even more weight as it is the parents' responsibility to raise their children in the ''training and admonition of the Lord'' (Ephesians 6:4). This means that on Sunday afternoon when the kids see dad turn off the baseball game and mom put down her book so that they can get ready for evening services, they are showing their children what is important. On the other hand, when parents schedule activities at times when the church assembles, this teaches their children that spiritual matters are only important as long as nothing better comes up. That is not what Jesus taught (Mark 12:30). This certainly does not apply only to the public assembly but to other spiritual matters as well. Parents, your children will only know to put God first if that is what you are teaching them. Are you aware that your children are watching you?
The fact that we need to be mindful of those who are watching us does not only apply to parents and their children. Think of the people with whom you are in regular contact on a daily basis. Do you consider the fact that they might have questions of a spiritual nature and don't know who they can ask? Do you realize that when you leave your spirituality at the church building you could be squandering an opportunity to share the gospel? When you think about that, someone's opportunity to escape spiritual death might be right in front of you. When we are at work or school and among our peers, it is easy to think that what we do doesn't matter or that it wouldn't make a difference any way. This, however, is not the attitude that God wants us to have. If it were, He would not have commanded us, ''let your light so shine before men, that they may see your works and glorify your Father in heaven'' (Matthew 5:16). Are you aware of who is watching you at work/school?
Thankfully, when we come home and are no longer under the pressure of trying to be an example to others, we can relax as there is no longer anyone watching us, right? Wrong! Let us not forget that even in the darkest solitude, we are still seen by God. I have often heard the scenario which asks if a person comes to a red light in the middle of the night with no one around, is he OK to run the light? Granted, the authorities may never know of this infraction, but God knows that you broke the law. We may think that in the secret corners of our lives, our private sins are of no consequence, but let us make sure that we know that these sins will not remain private forever. Jesus, as he prepares His disciples for persecution, tells them ''there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known'' (Matthew 10:26). Are you aware of who’s watching you when you are alone?
I seriously doubt there are many instances when everyone is watching you, and there are probably fewer when nobody is watching you. However, know that there is always somebody who is. It could be a child who is looking specifically to you for spiritual guidance. It could be a coworker or class mate who is looking for truth. Regardless of that, God is always watching you, hoping you that you will follow the path He has designed for you (Matthew 7:14).
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Are We Forgetful?
September 13, 2007
2:16 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
This past week, many Americans and people all over the world were reminded of the horrific tragedy which occurred on September 11, 2001. We revisited the sights of the incidents and watched as those present remembered through various ceremonies. While watching this, I could not help but revisit my own feelings the day it all happened and in the following months. I remember a great sadness which fell on our country, but I also remembered the great sense of pride and patriotism which followed. It occurred to me that our new found pride occurred only because of the attack. I realize now, as we have all gone on with our lives, that the sense of patriotism, for the most part, is now gone and we choose to remember only on anniversaries and few other times.
This got me thinking about an application to our spiritual lives. It seems that the times when Christians are the strongest are when they are met with adversity head on. We know this to be true because we have seen the church thrive through periods of severe persecution. I doubt there are many Christians who, if they were asked to choose between their lives and God, would not choose the latter. It seems that when there is a clear distinction between right and wrong, the right will usually prevail among God's people. It is rather the gray area that can prove to be the most dangerous. In the same manner that there is nothing like an attack on our country to boost our sense of national pride, there is nothing like clear persecution to bring out the zeal in most Christians.
What about the rest of the time? Should we only be proud of our country when it is suffering? Should we only be faithful and zealous Christians when the church is being persecuted? Though I cannot answer the question regarding our patriotism, I do know that God does not only call us to faithfulness when times are tough, or even only when times are good for that matter. The inspired writer of the book of Hebrews writes that ''we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end'' (Hebrews 3:14). The same writer also speaks of our ''need of endurance'' so that after we have done the will of God, we may receive the promise (Hebrews 10:36). The idea of being ''steadfast to the end'' or in ''need of endurance'' is not one which suggests that there are designated times in which our zeal should be strong. We should not sit around and wait for persecution to find us before we decide to serve God with all we have. It should be a constant effort. Are we forgetful of our calling?
Just like we tend to forget about the 9/11 tragedy except for on certain days, I fear that as Christians we sometimes forget where it is we came from. I am not speaking of our family lineage or the work we have put in to make the life that we have now. I am speaking of where we came from in a spiritual sense. Paul, as he writes to the church at Corinth, lists a number of sinful descriptions, but he is quick to remind them that ''such were some of you'' (1 Corinthians 6:11). He goes on to tell them, however, that they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord. That is where we came from. We were in the same boat as the Corinthians. We were dirty and filthy. We were sinners, but that has changed for those of us who are Christians, and that is a wonderful incentive to remain zealous in our service to God yet so many are not. Are we forgetful of where we came from?
One thing that we can see to be true in the world around us is that things change. Seasons change along with fashion trends and fads. Even we change our opinions of different issues as we get older. As we have seen from incidents like the 9/11 tragedy, even our emotions change. Jesus, however, said, ''Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away'' (Mark 13:31). We may change but God and His Word do not. Are we forgetful of that? Are you forgetful?
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
2:16 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
This past week, many Americans and people all over the world were reminded of the horrific tragedy which occurred on September 11, 2001. We revisited the sights of the incidents and watched as those present remembered through various ceremonies. While watching this, I could not help but revisit my own feelings the day it all happened and in the following months. I remember a great sadness which fell on our country, but I also remembered the great sense of pride and patriotism which followed. It occurred to me that our new found pride occurred only because of the attack. I realize now, as we have all gone on with our lives, that the sense of patriotism, for the most part, is now gone and we choose to remember only on anniversaries and few other times.
This got me thinking about an application to our spiritual lives. It seems that the times when Christians are the strongest are when they are met with adversity head on. We know this to be true because we have seen the church thrive through periods of severe persecution. I doubt there are many Christians who, if they were asked to choose between their lives and God, would not choose the latter. It seems that when there is a clear distinction between right and wrong, the right will usually prevail among God's people. It is rather the gray area that can prove to be the most dangerous. In the same manner that there is nothing like an attack on our country to boost our sense of national pride, there is nothing like clear persecution to bring out the zeal in most Christians.
What about the rest of the time? Should we only be proud of our country when it is suffering? Should we only be faithful and zealous Christians when the church is being persecuted? Though I cannot answer the question regarding our patriotism, I do know that God does not only call us to faithfulness when times are tough, or even only when times are good for that matter. The inspired writer of the book of Hebrews writes that ''we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end'' (Hebrews 3:14). The same writer also speaks of our ''need of endurance'' so that after we have done the will of God, we may receive the promise (Hebrews 10:36). The idea of being ''steadfast to the end'' or in ''need of endurance'' is not one which suggests that there are designated times in which our zeal should be strong. We should not sit around and wait for persecution to find us before we decide to serve God with all we have. It should be a constant effort. Are we forgetful of our calling?
Just like we tend to forget about the 9/11 tragedy except for on certain days, I fear that as Christians we sometimes forget where it is we came from. I am not speaking of our family lineage or the work we have put in to make the life that we have now. I am speaking of where we came from in a spiritual sense. Paul, as he writes to the church at Corinth, lists a number of sinful descriptions, but he is quick to remind them that ''such were some of you'' (1 Corinthians 6:11). He goes on to tell them, however, that they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord. That is where we came from. We were in the same boat as the Corinthians. We were dirty and filthy. We were sinners, but that has changed for those of us who are Christians, and that is a wonderful incentive to remain zealous in our service to God yet so many are not. Are we forgetful of where we came from?
One thing that we can see to be true in the world around us is that things change. Seasons change along with fashion trends and fads. Even we change our opinions of different issues as we get older. As we have seen from incidents like the 9/11 tragedy, even our emotions change. Jesus, however, said, ''Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away'' (Mark 13:31). We may change but God and His Word do not. Are we forgetful of that? Are you forgetful?
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Remembering 9/11
Septemper 11, 2007
11:24 a.m.
By: Unknown
Six years later. Though the temptation to become hardened and distant may be strong, we need to overcome it. We should not remeber for purposes of anger, but because forgetting would be a dishonor to those who were lost. If nothing else remember, and thank God that it was not you or someone close to you. If it was, I am sorry and I will pray for you. (jle)
As the soot and dirt and ash rained down,
We became one color.
As we carried each other down the stairs of the burning building,
We became one class.
As we lit candles of waiting and hoping,
We became one generation.
As the firefighters and police officers fought their way into the inferno,
We became one gender.
As we fell to our knees in prayer for strength,
We became one faith.
As we whispered or shouted words of encouragement,
We spoke one language.
As we gave our blood in lines a mile long,
We became one body.
As we mourned together the great loss,
We became one family.
As we cried tears of grief and loss,
We became one soul.
As we retell with pride the sacrifice of heroes,
We become one people.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
11:24 a.m.
By: Unknown
Six years later. Though the temptation to become hardened and distant may be strong, we need to overcome it. We should not remeber for purposes of anger, but because forgetting would be a dishonor to those who were lost. If nothing else remember, and thank God that it was not you or someone close to you. If it was, I am sorry and I will pray for you. (jle)
As the soot and dirt and ash rained down,
We became one color.
As we carried each other down the stairs of the burning building,
We became one class.
As we lit candles of waiting and hoping,
We became one generation.
As the firefighters and police officers fought their way into the inferno,
We became one gender.
As we fell to our knees in prayer for strength,
We became one faith.
As we whispered or shouted words of encouragement,
We spoke one language.
As we gave our blood in lines a mile long,
We became one body.
As we mourned together the great loss,
We became one family.
As we cried tears of grief and loss,
We became one soul.
As we retell with pride the sacrifice of heroes,
We become one people.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Quittin' the Lord
August 28, 2007
12:07 p.m.
By: Allen Dvorak
The style of this article is a bit different than you will normally see on here, but this one is too good not to post. I hope it will move us all to examine ourselves and ask if we have the right attitude twoard and during worship. [jle]
I'm not quitting the Lord, but I am definitely not going back to that church. I can't believe that the preacher said what he did. He made me so mad! I know that what he preached is in the Bible, but he hurt my feelings so I'm just not going back. Besides, I can turn on my television on Sunday and get all the preaching I want and, at least with the television, I have a volume control!
It wasn't just the preacher. The song leader sometimes leads too many songs. Occasionally he also leads songs that I don't really like. It's not that I'm quitting the Lord, but I am tired of some members dragging the singing; it sounds like a funeral march! In addition, some of the members are constantly off-key. I don't think that I will go back to that church anymore; I'll just stay home and listen to some religious music tapes that I have.
You know, I've been a member of that church for a long time and yet brother GreetEmAll didn't speak to me last Sunday. I am just sure that he saw me, but did he speak to me or shake my hand? I'm not quitting the Lord, but if that is the way that I am going to be treated at that church, I might just as well stay home. And then there's sister NotAware; she said something several years ago that I'm sure was intended to make fun of me and now I can hardly stand to sit near her in worship anymore. They'll probably not even miss me if I stay home this Sunday-- serves them right.
Now that I think about it, all I seem to hear about when I go to services is give, give, give. You would think that I am made of money the way that the brethren are always talking about supporting the work of the church with my ''prosperity.'' Don't they know that after I make my payments on my house, cars, boat, wide-screen television, hunting lease, motorcycle, vacation time-share and retirement fund, there is barely enough money left to contribute to my vacation budget and pay my weekly green fees? I'm not quitting the Lord, but maybe this Sunday I'll just stay home and avoid the greediness of that church. Religion is not about money, you know.
I'm not feeling all that well anyway. That reminds me. The last time I was sick, no one even called to see how I was doing. Of course, I don't normally come on Sunday night or Wednesday anyway, but that's no excuse for them not knowing that I was sick. I wouldn't exactly say that I am quitting the Lord, but I don't think that I will worship with the church this Sunday either.
Sound familiar? I have heard every one of these excuses for why some member has stopped worshiping with the church. What a relief to know that he hasn't ''quit the Lord''!
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
12:07 p.m.
By: Allen Dvorak
The style of this article is a bit different than you will normally see on here, but this one is too good not to post. I hope it will move us all to examine ourselves and ask if we have the right attitude twoard and during worship. [jle]
I'm not quitting the Lord, but I am definitely not going back to that church. I can't believe that the preacher said what he did. He made me so mad! I know that what he preached is in the Bible, but he hurt my feelings so I'm just not going back. Besides, I can turn on my television on Sunday and get all the preaching I want and, at least with the television, I have a volume control!
It wasn't just the preacher. The song leader sometimes leads too many songs. Occasionally he also leads songs that I don't really like. It's not that I'm quitting the Lord, but I am tired of some members dragging the singing; it sounds like a funeral march! In addition, some of the members are constantly off-key. I don't think that I will go back to that church anymore; I'll just stay home and listen to some religious music tapes that I have.
You know, I've been a member of that church for a long time and yet brother GreetEmAll didn't speak to me last Sunday. I am just sure that he saw me, but did he speak to me or shake my hand? I'm not quitting the Lord, but if that is the way that I am going to be treated at that church, I might just as well stay home. And then there's sister NotAware; she said something several years ago that I'm sure was intended to make fun of me and now I can hardly stand to sit near her in worship anymore. They'll probably not even miss me if I stay home this Sunday-- serves them right.
Now that I think about it, all I seem to hear about when I go to services is give, give, give. You would think that I am made of money the way that the brethren are always talking about supporting the work of the church with my ''prosperity.'' Don't they know that after I make my payments on my house, cars, boat, wide-screen television, hunting lease, motorcycle, vacation time-share and retirement fund, there is barely enough money left to contribute to my vacation budget and pay my weekly green fees? I'm not quitting the Lord, but maybe this Sunday I'll just stay home and avoid the greediness of that church. Religion is not about money, you know.
I'm not feeling all that well anyway. That reminds me. The last time I was sick, no one even called to see how I was doing. Of course, I don't normally come on Sunday night or Wednesday anyway, but that's no excuse for them not knowing that I was sick. I wouldn't exactly say that I am quitting the Lord, but I don't think that I will worship with the church this Sunday either.
Sound familiar? I have heard every one of these excuses for why some member has stopped worshiping with the church. What a relief to know that he hasn't ''quit the Lord''!
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Five Myths to Socalized Medicine
August 21, 2007
12:15 p.m.
By: Dr. John C. Goodman
This is a popular topic these days, especially with maniacs like Michael Moore running around on the loose. I liked this article. I know it is a tad on the long side, but trust me. YOU NEED TO READ THIS. This is what almost, if not every single Democratic presidential candidate is pushing right now! Check it out and tell me what you think in the Forum. (jle)
In the United States there are about 14 million people - more than a third of the uninsured - who are, in principle, eligible to get free medical care by joining either the Medicaid program or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. And yet they don't bother to enroll.
To understand why they don't, you might go to the emergency room of Parkland Hospital in my hometown of Dallas. The uninsured and Medicaid patients come there to get their medical care. They all see the same doctors. They get the same treatment. If they're admitted to the hospital, they stay in the same beds. From the patient's point of view, there is no real reason to join Medicaid, because they get the same care whether or not they are formally insured. The doctors and nurses get paid the same regardless of who is enrolled in what plan. The only people who really care whether or not someone is enrolled in Medicaid are the hospital administrators, because that determines how they get their money. So they actually have paid employees who go through the emergency room and try to get people to sign up for Medicaid. Over half the time they fail. Then they literally go hospital room by hospital room, trying to get admitted patients to enroll in Medicaid. And even then they don’t always succeed. Now, it's not that unusual for people to go to hospital emergency rooms for their care. It's a common feature of health systems around the world. It may not be an efficient way to deliver health care, but the same thing happens in Toronto and London. Canadians take pride in the fact that patients who get free care in Toronto emergency rooms are ''insured.'' But in Dallas, we're ashamed to say that our patients are ''uninsured", even though the care they receive in Dallas is probably better than the care they get in Toronto.
MYTH: ''A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE''
People who believe in socialized medicine have come to believe many myths. One is that socialized medicine gives you a right to health care. If you ask the head of Parkland Hospital and his counterpart in Toronto or London what the difference is in these systems, I think all three would say that in Toronto and London people have a ''right'' to health care, whereas in Dallas they do not. That is just not true. If you're a citizen of Canada, you don't really have a right to any particular health care service. You don't have a right to heart surgery. You don't even have a right to a place in the waiting line. If you're the hundredth person waiting for heart surgery, you're not entitled to the hundredth surgery. Other people can and do get in ahead of you. From time to time, even Americans go to Canada and jump the queue, because Americans can do something that Canadians cannot - Americans can pay for care. Canadian hospitals love to admit American patients, because that means cash into their budgets. The British government says that, at any one time, there are about a million people waiting to get into hospitals. According to the Fraser Institute, almost 900,000 Canadian patients are on the waiting list at any point in time. And, according to the New Zealand government, 90,000 people are on the waiting lists there. Those people constitute only about 1 to 2 percent of the population in those countries, but keep in mind that only about 15 percent of the population actually enters a hospital each year. Many of the people waiting are waiting in pain. Many are risking their lives by waiting. And there is no market mechanism in these countries to get care first to people who need it first.
MYTH: ''HIGHER QUALITY''
Another myth has to do with the quality of care that patients receive. British ministers of health have told British citizens for years that their health system is the envy of the world. Canadian ministers of health say much the same thing. In fact, Canadian and British doctors see 50 percent more patients than American doctors do, and, as a consequence, they have less time to spend with each patient. In Britain, the typical general practitioner barely has time to take your temperature and write a prescription. And even if they discover something wrong with you, they may not have the technology to solve your problem. Among people with chronic renal failure, only half as many Canadians as Americans get dialysis, and only a third as many Britons on a per capita basis. The American rate of coronary bypass surgeries is three or four times what it is in Canada, and five times what it is in Britain. Britain is the country that invented the CAT scanner, back in the 1970s. For awhile it exported more than half the CAT scanners used in the world. Yet they bought very few for their own citizens. Today, Britain has half the number of CAT scanners per capita as we do in the United States. A similar problem exists in Canada.
MYTH: ''MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK''
Yet another myth is that although the United States spends more on health care, we don't get more. That argument is often supported by pointing to life expectancy, which is not that much different among developed countries, and infant mortality, which is actually higher in the United States than it is in most other developed countries. What do we get for our money? The first thing we need to do is separate those phenomena that have little to do with health care from those that do. In the United States, life expectancy at birth for African American men is 68 years, while for Asian American men it's 81 years. We find wide differences in life expectancy among women, too. Nobody thinks that those differences are due to the health care system. What, then, would we want to look at if we really wanted to compare the efficacy of health care systems? We would look at those conditions for which we know medical services can make a real difference. Among women who are diagnosed with breast cancer, only one fifth die in the United States, compared to one third in France and Germany, and almost half in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Among men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer, fewer than one fifth die in the United States, compared to one fourth in Canada, almost half in France, and more than half in the United Kingdom.
MYTH: ''EQUAL ACCESS''
Perhaps no notion is more closely tied to national health insurance than the idea of equal access to health care. Every prime minister of health in Britain, from the day the National Health Service started, has said that is the primary goal of the NHS. Similar things are said in Canada and in other countries. The British government - unlike most other governments - studies the problem from time to time to see what kind of progress they're making. In 1980, they had a major report that said, essentially: ''We really haven't made very much progress in achieving equality of access to health care in our country. In fact, it looks like things are worse today, in 1980, than they were 30 years ago when the British National Health Service was started.'' Everybody deplored the results of that report, and they all promised to do better. There were a lot of articles written, a lot of conferences, and a lot of discussions. Another 10 years passed and they pondered another report, which said that things had deteriorated further. Today we are long overdue for a third report, but no one expects the situation to have improved. It's true that racial and ethnic minorities are underserved in the United States. But we are hardly alone. In Canada, the indigenous groups are the Cree and the Inuits. In New Zealand, they are Maoris. In Australia, the Aborigines. Those populations have more health care problems, shorter life expectancies, higher infant mortality, more health care needs, and they get less health care. When health care is rationed, racial and ethnic minorities do not usually do well in the rationing scheme. A Canadian study showed vast inequalities among the health regions of British Columbia. In some cases, there were spending differences of 10 to 1 in services provided in one area compared to another. That probably would not surprise most health policy analysts; you just don’t usually get this kind of data. But if we had the data, we would probably find similar inequalities in access to health care all over the developed world. I'm especially interested in the elderly, because I find that - not only in Britain and Canada, but also in the United States - when people have to make decisions about who is going to get care and who is not, they frequently choose the younger patient. Surveys of the elderly show that senior citizens in the United States say it’s much easier to get surgery, see doctors, see specialists, and enter hospitals, than say seniors in other countries.
MYTH: ''LESS RED TAPE''
Then we have the myth that national health insurance is an efficient way to deliver health care. I hear this frequently repeated by advocates in the United States. Probably the most telling statistic for hospitals is average length of stay. In general, efficient hospitals get people in and out more quickly. By that standard, the U.S. hospital sector is the most efficient in the world. And I think by many other standards it would not be much in dispute that the U.S. hospital sector is far more efficient than the hospital sectors of other countries. In Britain, where at any one time there are a million people waiting to get into British hospitals, 15 percent of the beds are empty, and another 15 percent are filled with chronic patients who really don't need the services of hospital; they're simply using the hospital as an expensive nursing home. So, effectively, almost one-third of the beds are closed off to acute care patients. A study compared Kaiser in California with the NHS and concluded that, after you make all of the appropriate adjustments, Kaiser spends about the same per capita on its enrollees as Britain spends on its population. But the Kaiser enrollees were getting more care, more access to specialists, and other services. We often hear that Medicare and Medicaid are efficient. The government says Medicaid only spends about 2 percent of its budget on administration. But that ignores all the costs that are shifted to doctors and hospitals. When you incorporate all those costs, it turns out that actually Medicare is not very efficient at all.
WHAT'S MISSING IS CAPITALISM
While our health care system is more market-oriented than in most industrialized nations, we don't really have a free market in health care in the United States. Half the spending is done by government. Most of the rest is done by bureaucratic institutions. The cosmetic surgery market is about the only market where patients are really spending their own money. And guess what? It works like a real market. People get package prices. They can compare prices. And over the decade of the 1990s, the average price of cosmetic surgery actually went down in real terms, even as there were all kinds of technological innovations that we are told drive up costs else where. Most of what I'm telling you here today I learned, not from right-wing critics of national health insurance, but from people who believe in it. If you look at my book, there are probably a thousand different references, and 95 percent of them are references to government reports, academic studies, and newspaper investigations. And in almost every case, the author of those reports is someone who believes in national health insurance. No matter how many problems they document, no matter how many failures they write about, they don't give up their faith in the system. They all believe that all the failures that they write about can be reformed away.
They all believe that we just haven't tried hard enough to reform the system and make it work. Sadly, they are wrong. Virtually all of these problems are inevitable consequences of the politicization of medicine. Why do these systems over provide to the healthy and under provide to the sick? Well, in the United States, about 4 percent of the patients spend half the money. If you’re a politician allocating health care dollars, you cannot afford to spend half your money on 4 percent of the voters - 4 percent who may be too sick to go to the polls and vote for you anyway. Why is the hospital sector so inefficient? Because it's in the self-interest of hospital managers to be inefficient. The chronic care patients and the empty beds are the cheap beds. It’s the acute care patients that cost money. Why can the rich and powerful jump to the head of the waiting lines? Because those are the people who control the sys-tem. They can change the system. If members of parliament, the wealthy, and the powerful had to wait for care along with everyone else, these systems would not last for a minute.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
12:15 p.m.
By: Dr. John C. Goodman
This is a popular topic these days, especially with maniacs like Michael Moore running around on the loose. I liked this article. I know it is a tad on the long side, but trust me. YOU NEED TO READ THIS. This is what almost, if not every single Democratic presidential candidate is pushing right now! Check it out and tell me what you think in the Forum. (jle)
In the United States there are about 14 million people - more than a third of the uninsured - who are, in principle, eligible to get free medical care by joining either the Medicaid program or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. And yet they don't bother to enroll.
To understand why they don't, you might go to the emergency room of Parkland Hospital in my hometown of Dallas. The uninsured and Medicaid patients come there to get their medical care. They all see the same doctors. They get the same treatment. If they're admitted to the hospital, they stay in the same beds. From the patient's point of view, there is no real reason to join Medicaid, because they get the same care whether or not they are formally insured. The doctors and nurses get paid the same regardless of who is enrolled in what plan. The only people who really care whether or not someone is enrolled in Medicaid are the hospital administrators, because that determines how they get their money. So they actually have paid employees who go through the emergency room and try to get people to sign up for Medicaid. Over half the time they fail. Then they literally go hospital room by hospital room, trying to get admitted patients to enroll in Medicaid. And even then they don’t always succeed. Now, it's not that unusual for people to go to hospital emergency rooms for their care. It's a common feature of health systems around the world. It may not be an efficient way to deliver health care, but the same thing happens in Toronto and London. Canadians take pride in the fact that patients who get free care in Toronto emergency rooms are ''insured.'' But in Dallas, we're ashamed to say that our patients are ''uninsured", even though the care they receive in Dallas is probably better than the care they get in Toronto.
MYTH: ''A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE''
People who believe in socialized medicine have come to believe many myths. One is that socialized medicine gives you a right to health care. If you ask the head of Parkland Hospital and his counterpart in Toronto or London what the difference is in these systems, I think all three would say that in Toronto and London people have a ''right'' to health care, whereas in Dallas they do not. That is just not true. If you're a citizen of Canada, you don't really have a right to any particular health care service. You don't have a right to heart surgery. You don't even have a right to a place in the waiting line. If you're the hundredth person waiting for heart surgery, you're not entitled to the hundredth surgery. Other people can and do get in ahead of you. From time to time, even Americans go to Canada and jump the queue, because Americans can do something that Canadians cannot - Americans can pay for care. Canadian hospitals love to admit American patients, because that means cash into their budgets. The British government says that, at any one time, there are about a million people waiting to get into hospitals. According to the Fraser Institute, almost 900,000 Canadian patients are on the waiting list at any point in time. And, according to the New Zealand government, 90,000 people are on the waiting lists there. Those people constitute only about 1 to 2 percent of the population in those countries, but keep in mind that only about 15 percent of the population actually enters a hospital each year. Many of the people waiting are waiting in pain. Many are risking their lives by waiting. And there is no market mechanism in these countries to get care first to people who need it first.
MYTH: ''HIGHER QUALITY''
Another myth has to do with the quality of care that patients receive. British ministers of health have told British citizens for years that their health system is the envy of the world. Canadian ministers of health say much the same thing. In fact, Canadian and British doctors see 50 percent more patients than American doctors do, and, as a consequence, they have less time to spend with each patient. In Britain, the typical general practitioner barely has time to take your temperature and write a prescription. And even if they discover something wrong with you, they may not have the technology to solve your problem. Among people with chronic renal failure, only half as many Canadians as Americans get dialysis, and only a third as many Britons on a per capita basis. The American rate of coronary bypass surgeries is three or four times what it is in Canada, and five times what it is in Britain. Britain is the country that invented the CAT scanner, back in the 1970s. For awhile it exported more than half the CAT scanners used in the world. Yet they bought very few for their own citizens. Today, Britain has half the number of CAT scanners per capita as we do in the United States. A similar problem exists in Canada.
MYTH: ''MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK''
Yet another myth is that although the United States spends more on health care, we don't get more. That argument is often supported by pointing to life expectancy, which is not that much different among developed countries, and infant mortality, which is actually higher in the United States than it is in most other developed countries. What do we get for our money? The first thing we need to do is separate those phenomena that have little to do with health care from those that do. In the United States, life expectancy at birth for African American men is 68 years, while for Asian American men it's 81 years. We find wide differences in life expectancy among women, too. Nobody thinks that those differences are due to the health care system. What, then, would we want to look at if we really wanted to compare the efficacy of health care systems? We would look at those conditions for which we know medical services can make a real difference. Among women who are diagnosed with breast cancer, only one fifth die in the United States, compared to one third in France and Germany, and almost half in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Among men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer, fewer than one fifth die in the United States, compared to one fourth in Canada, almost half in France, and more than half in the United Kingdom.
MYTH: ''EQUAL ACCESS''
Perhaps no notion is more closely tied to national health insurance than the idea of equal access to health care. Every prime minister of health in Britain, from the day the National Health Service started, has said that is the primary goal of the NHS. Similar things are said in Canada and in other countries. The British government - unlike most other governments - studies the problem from time to time to see what kind of progress they're making. In 1980, they had a major report that said, essentially: ''We really haven't made very much progress in achieving equality of access to health care in our country. In fact, it looks like things are worse today, in 1980, than they were 30 years ago when the British National Health Service was started.'' Everybody deplored the results of that report, and they all promised to do better. There were a lot of articles written, a lot of conferences, and a lot of discussions. Another 10 years passed and they pondered another report, which said that things had deteriorated further. Today we are long overdue for a third report, but no one expects the situation to have improved. It's true that racial and ethnic minorities are underserved in the United States. But we are hardly alone. In Canada, the indigenous groups are the Cree and the Inuits. In New Zealand, they are Maoris. In Australia, the Aborigines. Those populations have more health care problems, shorter life expectancies, higher infant mortality, more health care needs, and they get less health care. When health care is rationed, racial and ethnic minorities do not usually do well in the rationing scheme. A Canadian study showed vast inequalities among the health regions of British Columbia. In some cases, there were spending differences of 10 to 1 in services provided in one area compared to another. That probably would not surprise most health policy analysts; you just don’t usually get this kind of data. But if we had the data, we would probably find similar inequalities in access to health care all over the developed world. I'm especially interested in the elderly, because I find that - not only in Britain and Canada, but also in the United States - when people have to make decisions about who is going to get care and who is not, they frequently choose the younger patient. Surveys of the elderly show that senior citizens in the United States say it’s much easier to get surgery, see doctors, see specialists, and enter hospitals, than say seniors in other countries.
MYTH: ''LESS RED TAPE''
Then we have the myth that national health insurance is an efficient way to deliver health care. I hear this frequently repeated by advocates in the United States. Probably the most telling statistic for hospitals is average length of stay. In general, efficient hospitals get people in and out more quickly. By that standard, the U.S. hospital sector is the most efficient in the world. And I think by many other standards it would not be much in dispute that the U.S. hospital sector is far more efficient than the hospital sectors of other countries. In Britain, where at any one time there are a million people waiting to get into British hospitals, 15 percent of the beds are empty, and another 15 percent are filled with chronic patients who really don't need the services of hospital; they're simply using the hospital as an expensive nursing home. So, effectively, almost one-third of the beds are closed off to acute care patients. A study compared Kaiser in California with the NHS and concluded that, after you make all of the appropriate adjustments, Kaiser spends about the same per capita on its enrollees as Britain spends on its population. But the Kaiser enrollees were getting more care, more access to specialists, and other services. We often hear that Medicare and Medicaid are efficient. The government says Medicaid only spends about 2 percent of its budget on administration. But that ignores all the costs that are shifted to doctors and hospitals. When you incorporate all those costs, it turns out that actually Medicare is not very efficient at all.
WHAT'S MISSING IS CAPITALISM
While our health care system is more market-oriented than in most industrialized nations, we don't really have a free market in health care in the United States. Half the spending is done by government. Most of the rest is done by bureaucratic institutions. The cosmetic surgery market is about the only market where patients are really spending their own money. And guess what? It works like a real market. People get package prices. They can compare prices. And over the decade of the 1990s, the average price of cosmetic surgery actually went down in real terms, even as there were all kinds of technological innovations that we are told drive up costs else where. Most of what I'm telling you here today I learned, not from right-wing critics of national health insurance, but from people who believe in it. If you look at my book, there are probably a thousand different references, and 95 percent of them are references to government reports, academic studies, and newspaper investigations. And in almost every case, the author of those reports is someone who believes in national health insurance. No matter how many problems they document, no matter how many failures they write about, they don't give up their faith in the system. They all believe that all the failures that they write about can be reformed away.
They all believe that we just haven't tried hard enough to reform the system and make it work. Sadly, they are wrong. Virtually all of these problems are inevitable consequences of the politicization of medicine. Why do these systems over provide to the healthy and under provide to the sick? Well, in the United States, about 4 percent of the patients spend half the money. If you’re a politician allocating health care dollars, you cannot afford to spend half your money on 4 percent of the voters - 4 percent who may be too sick to go to the polls and vote for you anyway. Why is the hospital sector so inefficient? Because it's in the self-interest of hospital managers to be inefficient. The chronic care patients and the empty beds are the cheap beds. It’s the acute care patients that cost money. Why can the rich and powerful jump to the head of the waiting lines? Because those are the people who control the sys-tem. They can change the system. If members of parliament, the wealthy, and the powerful had to wait for care along with everyone else, these systems would not last for a minute.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
I am a Preacher
August 14, 2007
1:03 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
It has happened many times. I am enjoying a conversation with someone I have just met. We have already gone over the places we grow up, what we do for a living. Most likely we have already laughed over something we have in common. Then, the question comes out. ''So you're a pastor, huh?'' Anymore, I am not surprised by this question as it has happened more than once. I simply smile and explain that I am a preacher and not a pastor. The following question is what has given me the inclination to write this very article. ''What's the difference?''
As I understand, it is a common belief that the preacher and the pastor are basically the same thing. This is why people frequently assume that I am called the pastor. The Bible, however, makes a very clear distinction, between the two, that we would do well not to overlook. ''{11} And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, {12} for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ...'' (Ephesians 4:11-12). See there? Paul mentions both evangelists and pastors. This clearly shows us that they are NOT the same thing. What is a pastor then? According to Strong, pastor (poimen in Greek) literally means shepherd. This word is used in the Bible to refer to one who tends sheep in a literal sense, but it is also used here to refer to those who are charged with tending the flock of a local congregation. ''Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood'' (Acts 20:28).
So far we have noticed things that are not uncommon as far as the general understanding of what a pastor is. However, there is more. The Bible does not offer any specific qualifications that a man needs to meet before he can become a preacher. There are, however, some qualifications that a man must meet before he can be eligible to be considered a pastor or elder (episkopos in Greek), as they are sometimes called (1 Peter 5:1). Also note that these men are called bishops in other places (1 Timothy 3:1). You will see that though the specific names may be different, their qualifications and responsibilities remain the same. So what qualifications does a man have to meet before he can become a pastor/elder/bishop/overseer? We can see these qualifications in Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7. The individual must be the husband of one wife, the father of faithful children, not given to wine, able to teach, and not a novice. These are just a few, but we can easily see that if a man can meet these qualifications, he would be an excellent shepherd in the Lord's church as all of these things, in the individual's life, translate to the necessary characteristics of a leader.
There is one more common misunderstanding regarding pastors. Many people believe that it is acceptable to have one man as the pastor or overseer of the congregation. This is yet another mistake. Notice with me a few passages. ''From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church'' (Acts 20:17). ''This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul'' (Acts 11:30). ''So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed'' (Acts 14:23). See the similarities. Every time elders/pastors are mentioned, there is more than one. This shows us that there was a plurality of overseers in the congregations of the early church. Since there has been no revelation from God since then, which has changed this (2 Peter 1:3); we are to abide by this God given example.
It is unfortunate, but there are many who teach that one man can be a pastor/overseer of a congregation. There are those who teach that unmarried men can serve as elders. There are also some who ignore completely the qualifications of the Bible and simply appoint men who are ''older.'' It is not my intent to offend or to be unkind to anyone. However, it is important that we consult the Bible when we start appointing men to serve as bishops over the Lord's church. One day, I hope to be an elder. However, at this point I am not qualified. Until that time when I am qualified, I will simply smile and answer the question, ''So you're a pastor, huh?'' the same way I have today.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
1:03 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
It has happened many times. I am enjoying a conversation with someone I have just met. We have already gone over the places we grow up, what we do for a living. Most likely we have already laughed over something we have in common. Then, the question comes out. ''So you're a pastor, huh?'' Anymore, I am not surprised by this question as it has happened more than once. I simply smile and explain that I am a preacher and not a pastor. The following question is what has given me the inclination to write this very article. ''What's the difference?''
As I understand, it is a common belief that the preacher and the pastor are basically the same thing. This is why people frequently assume that I am called the pastor. The Bible, however, makes a very clear distinction, between the two, that we would do well not to overlook. ''{11} And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, {12} for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ...'' (Ephesians 4:11-12). See there? Paul mentions both evangelists and pastors. This clearly shows us that they are NOT the same thing. What is a pastor then? According to Strong, pastor (poimen in Greek) literally means shepherd. This word is used in the Bible to refer to one who tends sheep in a literal sense, but it is also used here to refer to those who are charged with tending the flock of a local congregation. ''Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood'' (Acts 20:28).
So far we have noticed things that are not uncommon as far as the general understanding of what a pastor is. However, there is more. The Bible does not offer any specific qualifications that a man needs to meet before he can become a preacher. There are, however, some qualifications that a man must meet before he can be eligible to be considered a pastor or elder (episkopos in Greek), as they are sometimes called (1 Peter 5:1). Also note that these men are called bishops in other places (1 Timothy 3:1). You will see that though the specific names may be different, their qualifications and responsibilities remain the same. So what qualifications does a man have to meet before he can become a pastor/elder/bishop/overseer? We can see these qualifications in Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7. The individual must be the husband of one wife, the father of faithful children, not given to wine, able to teach, and not a novice. These are just a few, but we can easily see that if a man can meet these qualifications, he would be an excellent shepherd in the Lord's church as all of these things, in the individual's life, translate to the necessary characteristics of a leader.
There is one more common misunderstanding regarding pastors. Many people believe that it is acceptable to have one man as the pastor or overseer of the congregation. This is yet another mistake. Notice with me a few passages. ''From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church'' (Acts 20:17). ''This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul'' (Acts 11:30). ''So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed'' (Acts 14:23). See the similarities. Every time elders/pastors are mentioned, there is more than one. This shows us that there was a plurality of overseers in the congregations of the early church. Since there has been no revelation from God since then, which has changed this (2 Peter 1:3); we are to abide by this God given example.
It is unfortunate, but there are many who teach that one man can be a pastor/overseer of a congregation. There are those who teach that unmarried men can serve as elders. There are also some who ignore completely the qualifications of the Bible and simply appoint men who are ''older.'' It is not my intent to offend or to be unkind to anyone. However, it is important that we consult the Bible when we start appointing men to serve as bishops over the Lord's church. One day, I hope to be an elder. However, at this point I am not qualified. Until that time when I am qualified, I will simply smile and answer the question, ''So you're a pastor, huh?'' the same way I have today.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Church Discipline
August 7, 2007
12:20 p.m.
By: John W. Quinn
This particular topic has been of recent interest in a close circle of my friends. It is not a particularly enjoyable topic to discuss, but that does not take away from its importance and necessity. I feel this article is a good representation of how the Lord's people should deal with discipline in the church. I hope this will shed some light on what can be a very confusing issue. (jle)
The church where I attend tries to apply the teachings of the New Testament regardless of the what is politically correct and what is not. We recently had to withdraw our fellowship from a couple of our members who were not living according to the commandments of Christ. I am not talking about imperfections or momentary weakness, but ongoing chronic disobedience and a refusal to repent. I would like to share a part of the announcement that was read to the church. I will leave out the identities and the particulars, because neither are anybody else's business. I know that most of the world frowns on churches who would actually carry out the Scripture's teaching on this matter, but then, the world always has had very little regard for the Lord's doctrine. To discipline members of the body is required by the covenant of Jesus Christ. It is my hope that this article will help others understand the purpose, method as well as the Scriptural motives behind such action. The announcement went as follows:
It is our duty and goal to always bring honor to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. This can only be done by respecting and obeying His word. We are all aware that our efforts in this regard are not perfect, but this does not relieve us of the obligation to our Lord to always seek to grow and improve in our service to Him as His body.
It is with sadness that we must acknowledge that some who are members of the body here are not walking according to the commandments of Jesus. Transgression in the case of two of our number has gone beyond human imperfection. Both have been approached patiently and with love, both have acknowledged their sin, but neither have indicated a desire to change their course.
The Covenant of Jesus Christ gives instructions to the local congregation concerning what to do in such circumstances. If we accept His lordship, then we will comply with His teaching. Here are a portion of some of the Scriptures which instruct us concerning the will of Christ:
First, from 2 Thessalonians 3
2TH 3:6 ''Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.''
2TH 3:14-15 ''And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame. And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.''
Also, this from 1 Corinthians 5:
1CO 5:1-7 ''It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.''
The teaching is plain. What is left up to our discernment is how long do we attempt to work with such ones before taking this prescribed action. It is sometimes difficult to reach a consensus on this, and so we must work together with brotherly consideration until we do. We have prayerfully and carefully considered this decision. In the past, if we have erred, it is more likely in that we have waited too long.
Notice that these passages give at least two reasons why one not walking in accordance with the teaching of Christ must be put outside the local church body. First, it is a message to them that their soul is in jeopardy and in hopes that the heart will be touched and that sorrow will lead to repentance. The second is so that the rest of the body will not be adversely effected. We hope that both of these divinely stated purposes will be achieved that we may rejoice with our brother and sister again.
Also notice that our erring brother and sister are not to be looked upon as enemies. They must be respected, loved and encouraged to do the right thing when the opportunity arises in the future to do so. They are not to be looked down upon, regarded as unworthy of our love or despised in any way. The Lord loves them, and so do we. Our future dealings with them should be such that make our concern for their souls obvious.
We hope that those things contrary to the will of Christ will be quickly rectified, and pray that both might turn again to the Lord.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum
12:20 p.m.
By: John W. Quinn
This particular topic has been of recent interest in a close circle of my friends. It is not a particularly enjoyable topic to discuss, but that does not take away from its importance and necessity. I feel this article is a good representation of how the Lord's people should deal with discipline in the church. I hope this will shed some light on what can be a very confusing issue. (jle)
The church where I attend tries to apply the teachings of the New Testament regardless of the what is politically correct and what is not. We recently had to withdraw our fellowship from a couple of our members who were not living according to the commandments of Christ. I am not talking about imperfections or momentary weakness, but ongoing chronic disobedience and a refusal to repent. I would like to share a part of the announcement that was read to the church. I will leave out the identities and the particulars, because neither are anybody else's business. I know that most of the world frowns on churches who would actually carry out the Scripture's teaching on this matter, but then, the world always has had very little regard for the Lord's doctrine. To discipline members of the body is required by the covenant of Jesus Christ. It is my hope that this article will help others understand the purpose, method as well as the Scriptural motives behind such action. The announcement went as follows:
It is our duty and goal to always bring honor to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. This can only be done by respecting and obeying His word. We are all aware that our efforts in this regard are not perfect, but this does not relieve us of the obligation to our Lord to always seek to grow and improve in our service to Him as His body.
It is with sadness that we must acknowledge that some who are members of the body here are not walking according to the commandments of Jesus. Transgression in the case of two of our number has gone beyond human imperfection. Both have been approached patiently and with love, both have acknowledged their sin, but neither have indicated a desire to change their course.
The Covenant of Jesus Christ gives instructions to the local congregation concerning what to do in such circumstances. If we accept His lordship, then we will comply with His teaching. Here are a portion of some of the Scriptures which instruct us concerning the will of Christ:
First, from 2 Thessalonians 3
2TH 3:6 ''Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.''
2TH 3:14-15 ''And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame. And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.''
Also, this from 1 Corinthians 5:
1CO 5:1-7 ''It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.''
The teaching is plain. What is left up to our discernment is how long do we attempt to work with such ones before taking this prescribed action. It is sometimes difficult to reach a consensus on this, and so we must work together with brotherly consideration until we do. We have prayerfully and carefully considered this decision. In the past, if we have erred, it is more likely in that we have waited too long.
Notice that these passages give at least two reasons why one not walking in accordance with the teaching of Christ must be put outside the local church body. First, it is a message to them that their soul is in jeopardy and in hopes that the heart will be touched and that sorrow will lead to repentance. The second is so that the rest of the body will not be adversely effected. We hope that both of these divinely stated purposes will be achieved that we may rejoice with our brother and sister again.
Also notice that our erring brother and sister are not to be looked upon as enemies. They must be respected, loved and encouraged to do the right thing when the opportunity arises in the future to do so. They are not to be looked down upon, regarded as unworthy of our love or despised in any way. The Lord loves them, and so do we. Our future dealings with them should be such that make our concern for their souls obvious.
We hope that those things contrary to the will of Christ will be quickly rectified, and pray that both might turn again to the Lord.
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
What's Going on Here?
July 31, 2007
1:24 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
I will be the first to tell you that what you are about to read is more along the lines of a tangent rather than an article. To be quite honest, after being away from the website for a while, I return to the front lines a bit annoyed to say the least. I am simply unaware why, in spite of all that is going on in this country, we as the American people seem to be so obsessed with such idiocy. Most people seem to have no problem complaining about our country or our government, and it is quite irksome that their righteous anger is put on the back burner because a new episode of ''Lost'' comes on. Don't misunderstand me, I like ''Lost'' just as much as the next guy. I just don't understand why the majority of our focus, as a country, seems to be on things that don't matter.
If you were to turn on CNN right now, you would most likely hear a few tidbits about the recent democrat debate and the upcoming republican debate, but that would be short lived because of the breaking news that Paris Hilton was spotted at Starbucks. For sobbing out loud, I just turned on CNN (I felt I might be acting to hastily and I wanted to make sure there is validity to my writing) and the headline was a YouTube contest where the winner gets to be P. Diddy's personal assistant and hold his umbrella for him. COME ON PEOPLE! ARE YOU KIDDING?
I guess my main question about all this is, ''who cares?'' Who cares if Lindsey Lohan is arrested at a club in L.A. with drugs on her person Even I know that's not news! Have we forgotten that there are elections coming up? Have we neglected to realize that our country is on the verge of a turning point with the left pushing abortion and gay marriage and idiots like Michael Moore trying to communize your healthcare? We cannot be so immature to think that these things will not matter for us, can we? Of course, if that is true, I am sure that way of thinking will be changed when we are being herded through the doctors office like cattle after having been on a 6 month waiting list for a flu shot. Please, stop me when I start to sound bitter.
I am sure I will reap plenty of criticism for posting this and I am ready for it, but first, let me say that I am not demanding anything different than that which would be expected in our spiritual lives. I simply demand it under secular circumstances. Paul tells us to keep our mind on things above and not on things of the earth (Colossians 3:1-4). Does this mean that we cannot ever think about things of a secular nature? No, but it does teach us that which we should deem most important. We should put our time and energy into the things that matter most, and let the rest of it fall to the wayside.
I realize that this sounds quite critical, but let me assure you, this is something that I plan to work on as well. I would encourage us all to reprioritize if necessary. Ask yourself, what is most important in your life. Then, ask yourself what should be most important. If they are not the same, make them so. ''{1} Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, {2} looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God'' (Hebrews 12:1-2).
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
1:24 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
I will be the first to tell you that what you are about to read is more along the lines of a tangent rather than an article. To be quite honest, after being away from the website for a while, I return to the front lines a bit annoyed to say the least. I am simply unaware why, in spite of all that is going on in this country, we as the American people seem to be so obsessed with such idiocy. Most people seem to have no problem complaining about our country or our government, and it is quite irksome that their righteous anger is put on the back burner because a new episode of ''Lost'' comes on. Don't misunderstand me, I like ''Lost'' just as much as the next guy. I just don't understand why the majority of our focus, as a country, seems to be on things that don't matter.
If you were to turn on CNN right now, you would most likely hear a few tidbits about the recent democrat debate and the upcoming republican debate, but that would be short lived because of the breaking news that Paris Hilton was spotted at Starbucks. For sobbing out loud, I just turned on CNN (I felt I might be acting to hastily and I wanted to make sure there is validity to my writing) and the headline was a YouTube contest where the winner gets to be P. Diddy's personal assistant and hold his umbrella for him. COME ON PEOPLE! ARE YOU KIDDING?
I guess my main question about all this is, ''who cares?'' Who cares if Lindsey Lohan is arrested at a club in L.A. with drugs on her person Even I know that's not news! Have we forgotten that there are elections coming up? Have we neglected to realize that our country is on the verge of a turning point with the left pushing abortion and gay marriage and idiots like Michael Moore trying to communize your healthcare? We cannot be so immature to think that these things will not matter for us, can we? Of course, if that is true, I am sure that way of thinking will be changed when we are being herded through the doctors office like cattle after having been on a 6 month waiting list for a flu shot. Please, stop me when I start to sound bitter.
I am sure I will reap plenty of criticism for posting this and I am ready for it, but first, let me say that I am not demanding anything different than that which would be expected in our spiritual lives. I simply demand it under secular circumstances. Paul tells us to keep our mind on things above and not on things of the earth (Colossians 3:1-4). Does this mean that we cannot ever think about things of a secular nature? No, but it does teach us that which we should deem most important. We should put our time and energy into the things that matter most, and let the rest of it fall to the wayside.
I realize that this sounds quite critical, but let me assure you, this is something that I plan to work on as well. I would encourage us all to reprioritize if necessary. Ask yourself, what is most important in your life. Then, ask yourself what should be most important. If they are not the same, make them so. ''{1} Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, {2} looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God'' (Hebrews 12:1-2).
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Oh...Daddy, I Forgot.
June 28, 2007
10:23 a.m.
By: Gary W. Holladay Sr.
At sunset I was quite tired from transplanting a cherry tree in the front yard of my corner lot; but I still needed to tie it down to protect it from the wind. As I pounded stakes into the ground I heard the gleeful squeals of small children in the distance. Looking up, I saw a man following two small bicycles heading in my direction. One bike was clad with pink ribbons and a tiny little girl. Big brother, though not much bigger, was riding ahead. I returned to pounding stakes.
Moments later I heard the man say, ''Do not cross the street. Wait for me at the corner.'' Sure enough, when I looked back the boy had peddled farther ahead and was waiting at the corner. ''Which way should we go, Daddy?'' said the little boy raring to cross. ''Let's go this way son, so we can stay on the sidewalk,'' said the man, ''There's not a sidewalk on that side of the street.'' I saw them turn and go up the cul-de-sac away from my house.
I finished pounding in the stakes and was cutting twine when I heard again, ''Do not cross the street. Wait for me at the corner.'' Again, the boy had zipped ahead and was waiting at the street corner. As his dad caught up with him the boy asked, ''Can we cross the street now?'' The man said ''yes'' and the boy zoomed to the sidewalk in front of my house and started down the short cul-de-sac that I live on.
I tied a strip of cloth around the trunk of the tree and began tying twine to the cloth. ''Wait at the corner'' said the man as he rounded the end of the cul-de-sac. A few moments later I heard a shout, ''Son, why did you cross the street? Why didn't you wait for me?'' There was no answer. The man asked again, ''Why did you cross the street?'' After a pause the boy explained, ''Because I wanted to.'' The father was distressed, ''I told you to wait for me!'' After a longer pause the boy replied, ''Oh...Daddy, I forgot.'' ''No, that is not acceptable.'' said the disappointed man, ''Now I can no longer trust you. Our walk is over.''
How familiar those words sounded as I remembered my own children saying, ''because I wanted to'' or ''I forgot.'' And ''I can no longer trust you'' struck deep sorrow. The deed was done, the trust was broken, and the walk was over.
As I finished tying the twine to the stakes, I realized the greater significance of the event I had just witnessed. I remembered when my Father in heaven had told me to ''wait at the corner'' and I did not listen. How that must have disappointed Him! The trust I shattered as I disobeyed His word... and my ''walk'' with God ended.
I don't know what happened after the man took his children home. He seemed to be a loving father. After all, he wanted them to cross the street under his protection and stay on the sidewalk where it was safe. Perhaps he was merciful to his erring son. What I do know is that my Father in heaven has shown mercy to me. And like my cherry tree, I have been transplanted and anchored by His son.
Titus 3:3-7 ''For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures... But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.''
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
10:23 a.m.
By: Gary W. Holladay Sr.
At sunset I was quite tired from transplanting a cherry tree in the front yard of my corner lot; but I still needed to tie it down to protect it from the wind. As I pounded stakes into the ground I heard the gleeful squeals of small children in the distance. Looking up, I saw a man following two small bicycles heading in my direction. One bike was clad with pink ribbons and a tiny little girl. Big brother, though not much bigger, was riding ahead. I returned to pounding stakes.
Moments later I heard the man say, ''Do not cross the street. Wait for me at the corner.'' Sure enough, when I looked back the boy had peddled farther ahead and was waiting at the corner. ''Which way should we go, Daddy?'' said the little boy raring to cross. ''Let's go this way son, so we can stay on the sidewalk,'' said the man, ''There's not a sidewalk on that side of the street.'' I saw them turn and go up the cul-de-sac away from my house.
I finished pounding in the stakes and was cutting twine when I heard again, ''Do not cross the street. Wait for me at the corner.'' Again, the boy had zipped ahead and was waiting at the street corner. As his dad caught up with him the boy asked, ''Can we cross the street now?'' The man said ''yes'' and the boy zoomed to the sidewalk in front of my house and started down the short cul-de-sac that I live on.
I tied a strip of cloth around the trunk of the tree and began tying twine to the cloth. ''Wait at the corner'' said the man as he rounded the end of the cul-de-sac. A few moments later I heard a shout, ''Son, why did you cross the street? Why didn't you wait for me?'' There was no answer. The man asked again, ''Why did you cross the street?'' After a pause the boy explained, ''Because I wanted to.'' The father was distressed, ''I told you to wait for me!'' After a longer pause the boy replied, ''Oh...Daddy, I forgot.'' ''No, that is not acceptable.'' said the disappointed man, ''Now I can no longer trust you. Our walk is over.''
How familiar those words sounded as I remembered my own children saying, ''because I wanted to'' or ''I forgot.'' And ''I can no longer trust you'' struck deep sorrow. The deed was done, the trust was broken, and the walk was over.
As I finished tying the twine to the stakes, I realized the greater significance of the event I had just witnessed. I remembered when my Father in heaven had told me to ''wait at the corner'' and I did not listen. How that must have disappointed Him! The trust I shattered as I disobeyed His word... and my ''walk'' with God ended.
I don't know what happened after the man took his children home. He seemed to be a loving father. After all, he wanted them to cross the street under his protection and stay on the sidewalk where it was safe. Perhaps he was merciful to his erring son. What I do know is that my Father in heaven has shown mercy to me. And like my cherry tree, I have been transplanted and anchored by His son.
Titus 3:3-7 ''For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures... But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.''
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
'Cause My Cup Has Overflowed
June 12, 2007
11:07 a.m.
By: Anonymous via Whit Sasser
I've never made a fortune,
and it's probably too late now.
But I don't worry about that much,
I'm happy anyhow.
And as I go along life's way,
I'm reaping better than I sowed.
I'm drinking from my saucer,
'Cause my cup has overflowed..
Haven't got a lot of riches,
and sometimes the going's tough.
But I've got loving ones all around me,
and that makes me rich enough.
I thank God for his blessings,
and the mercies He's bestowed.
I'm drinking from my saucer,
'Cause my cup has overflowed.
I remember times when things went wrong,
My faith wore somewhat thin.
But all at once the dark clouds broke,
and the sun peeped through again.
So Lord, help me not to gripe,
about the tough rows I have hoed..
I'm drinking from my saucer,
'Cause my cup has overflowed..
If God gives me strength and courage,
When the way grows steep and rough.
I'll not ask for other blessings,
I'm already blessed enough.
And may I never be too busy,
to help others bear their loads.
Then I'll keep drinking from my saucer,
'Cause my cup has overflowed.
Questions or Comments? Visit the forum.
11:07 a.m.
By: Anonymous via Whit Sasser
I've never made a fortune,
and it's probably too late now.
But I don't worry about that much,
I'm happy anyhow.
And as I go along life's way,
I'm reaping better than I sowed.
I'm drinking from my saucer,
'Cause my cup has overflowed..
Haven't got a lot of riches,
and sometimes the going's tough.
But I've got loving ones all around me,
and that makes me rich enough.
I thank God for his blessings,
and the mercies He's bestowed.
I'm drinking from my saucer,
'Cause my cup has overflowed.
I remember times when things went wrong,
My faith wore somewhat thin.
But all at once the dark clouds broke,
and the sun peeped through again.
So Lord, help me not to gripe,
about the tough rows I have hoed..
I'm drinking from my saucer,
'Cause my cup has overflowed..
If God gives me strength and courage,
When the way grows steep and rough.
I'll not ask for other blessings,
I'm already blessed enough.
And may I never be too busy,
to help others bear their loads.
Then I'll keep drinking from my saucer,
'Cause my cup has overflowed.
Questions or Comments? Visit the forum.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
CATSKILLS SITE EYED
June 5, 2007
10:42 a.m.
By: JOHN MAZOR and MURRAY WEISS
My friend Sonja shared this article with me and to be perfectly honest, it freaks me out a bit. Please check it out. See the full article here
Authorities cite connections between a secretive upstate camp called Islamberg and Pakistani cleric Mubarak AliJune 4, 2007 -- A remote Muslim commune nestled in the Catskill Mountains has come under the scrutiny of state and federal authorities for possible ties to terrorism, according to law-enforcement sources.
Officials say Islamberg - a wooded, 70-acre encampment in upstate Tompkins, about three hours north of the city - acts as the headquarters for an outfit called Muslims of the Americas, widely believed to be a front for Jamaat al-Fuqra, founded by radical Pakistani cleric Mubarak Ali Gilani.
Reports of gunfire and military-style physical training at the camp have led some investigators to believe that the group's members are preparing for homegrown jihad.
According to one account, a neighbor said he has seen commune members dressed in Port Authority uniforms.
Al-Fuqra members have been suspects in assassinations and firebombings in the United States, authorities said, and an associate of the group, Rodney Hampton-el, was jailed in 1996 for plotting to bomb New York bridges and tunnels.
Gilani is the extremist who Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was reportedly trying to meet in Pakistan when he was abducted and beheaded.
Gilani started the organization in 1980, when he came to America and began preaching at a Brooklyn mosque.
After Gilani returned to Pakistan, the American group he started entrenched itself in a number of rural outposts, according to authorities.
The feds have alleged that some group members have been sent to Pakistan and Afghanistan to receive terrorist training.
One Islamberg resident denied the charge.
''This is my country, the resident said. ''I love this country. I did a year in the bush in Vietnam for this country.''
The resident, who wouldn't give his name, was wearing traditional Islamic garb when he intercepted a Post reporter seeking a tour of the camp.
The camp, which sits off a dirt road, appears to be little more than a collection of ramshackle homes and trailers.
The resident admitted that Gilani was the spiritual head of Muslims of the Americas but denied the existence of al-Fuqra.
The resident called Gilani ''a reformer.''
"But some people don't reform," he said. ''They do a lot of foolishness in [Gilani's] name.''
Asked whether commune members kept weapons at the camp, the resident said, ''We got guns up here just like everyone else got guns. We're American citizens.''
john.mazor@nypost.com
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum
10:42 a.m.
By: JOHN MAZOR and MURRAY WEISS
My friend Sonja shared this article with me and to be perfectly honest, it freaks me out a bit. Please check it out. See the full article here
Authorities cite connections between a secretive upstate camp called Islamberg and Pakistani cleric Mubarak AliJune 4, 2007 -- A remote Muslim commune nestled in the Catskill Mountains has come under the scrutiny of state and federal authorities for possible ties to terrorism, according to law-enforcement sources.
Officials say Islamberg - a wooded, 70-acre encampment in upstate Tompkins, about three hours north of the city - acts as the headquarters for an outfit called Muslims of the Americas, widely believed to be a front for Jamaat al-Fuqra, founded by radical Pakistani cleric Mubarak Ali Gilani.
Reports of gunfire and military-style physical training at the camp have led some investigators to believe that the group's members are preparing for homegrown jihad.
According to one account, a neighbor said he has seen commune members dressed in Port Authority uniforms.
Al-Fuqra members have been suspects in assassinations and firebombings in the United States, authorities said, and an associate of the group, Rodney Hampton-el, was jailed in 1996 for plotting to bomb New York bridges and tunnels.
Gilani is the extremist who Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was reportedly trying to meet in Pakistan when he was abducted and beheaded.
Gilani started the organization in 1980, when he came to America and began preaching at a Brooklyn mosque.
After Gilani returned to Pakistan, the American group he started entrenched itself in a number of rural outposts, according to authorities.
The feds have alleged that some group members have been sent to Pakistan and Afghanistan to receive terrorist training.
One Islamberg resident denied the charge.
''This is my country, the resident said. ''I love this country. I did a year in the bush in Vietnam for this country.''
The resident, who wouldn't give his name, was wearing traditional Islamic garb when he intercepted a Post reporter seeking a tour of the camp.
The camp, which sits off a dirt road, appears to be little more than a collection of ramshackle homes and trailers.
The resident admitted that Gilani was the spiritual head of Muslims of the Americas but denied the existence of al-Fuqra.
The resident called Gilani ''a reformer.''
"But some people don't reform," he said. ''They do a lot of foolishness in [Gilani's] name.''
Asked whether commune members kept weapons at the camp, the resident said, ''We got guns up here just like everyone else got guns. We're American citizens.''
john.mazor@nypost.com
Questions or Comments? Visit the Forum
Friday, June 1, 2007
Boulder HS Guest Speaker Promotes Sex, Drugs and Homosexuality
June 1, 2007
12:01 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
ATTENTION: SOME CONTENT IN THIS ARTICLE MAY BE UNSUITABLE FOR CHILDREN.
I am not going to pretend that I was there. I am not going to pretend that I know the context of all of the following information. Regardless, there were some things said at the recent mandatory assembly held by Boulder High School in Boulder, CO that you should know about. Here a few of the things that guest speaker, Professor Joel Becker of UCLA, said to a group of high school kids.
''I am going to encourage you to have sex and encourage you to use drugs appropriately.''
''I want to encourage you to all have healthy, sexual behavior. Men with men, women and women, whatever combination you would like.''
''It's very natural for young people to experiment with same-sex relationships. When you are 13, 12... one of the most appropriate sexual behaviors would be masturbation.''
''Even today, there are psychiatrists who will do sessions under the influence of ecstasy. If I had some maybe I'd do it with someone, but you know.''
Where does one even start to address the irresponsibility, immorality and just plain stupidity of these comments? In this situation we have this Professor from UCLA tell a group of kids (some as young as 14) that they should go out and do drugs and have sex. I am even putting it mildly as you can see from the above quotes. What is even worse is that Boulder High School plans to have the assembly next year. Administrators have, however, stated that attendance will be optional as if that is the answer to this issue. Before one even begins to address the issue of morality, it is plain to see that the statements of this guy are dangerous.
Hypothetically, let us assume that a particular 15 year-old kid paid close attention to the lecture. Maybe he is unpopular and unsure of himself. This is not hard to conceive as such is the case for many teenagers. He thinks that doing what this guy tells him will make him ''cool'' or accepted. What happens when that kid is reported dead on the 11:00 news after having overdosed on ecstasy? What about your daughters who are being taught that the only way to be accepted is to have sex with as many boys as possible? Some kids do not have a strong parental system at home. Should they be subject to this guy's teachings when he could very well be the most influential person in their lives?
Paul said to ''flee sexual immorality'' for a reason (1 Corinthians 6:18). Not only do studies show the dangers of a life of promiscuity, unprotected sex, fornication and drug use. Paul also specifically addresses the sin of living a homosexual lifestyle and refers it to that which is ''shameful'' (Romans 1:26-27). Statistics show us that these lifestyles do not promote a healthy existence. The immorality that is being taught in public schools is an obvious effort to keeping our kids out of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Folks, some may be able to look at Colorado and say that Boulder is far away. Let us not be so foolish as to think that things like this cannot happen in local schools. Parents are you aware of what your school system is teaching? If you are not aware, FIND OUT! What are you doing to ensure your children will not be sitting ducks for the fiery darts of the wicked one?
Questions or comments? Visit the Forum.
12:01 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
ATTENTION: SOME CONTENT IN THIS ARTICLE MAY BE UNSUITABLE FOR CHILDREN.
I am not going to pretend that I was there. I am not going to pretend that I know the context of all of the following information. Regardless, there were some things said at the recent mandatory assembly held by Boulder High School in Boulder, CO that you should know about. Here a few of the things that guest speaker, Professor Joel Becker of UCLA, said to a group of high school kids.
''I am going to encourage you to have sex and encourage you to use drugs appropriately.''
''I want to encourage you to all have healthy, sexual behavior. Men with men, women and women, whatever combination you would like.''
''It's very natural for young people to experiment with same-sex relationships. When you are 13, 12... one of the most appropriate sexual behaviors would be masturbation.''
''Even today, there are psychiatrists who will do sessions under the influence of ecstasy. If I had some maybe I'd do it with someone, but you know.''
Where does one even start to address the irresponsibility, immorality and just plain stupidity of these comments? In this situation we have this Professor from UCLA tell a group of kids (some as young as 14) that they should go out and do drugs and have sex. I am even putting it mildly as you can see from the above quotes. What is even worse is that Boulder High School plans to have the assembly next year. Administrators have, however, stated that attendance will be optional as if that is the answer to this issue. Before one even begins to address the issue of morality, it is plain to see that the statements of this guy are dangerous.
Hypothetically, let us assume that a particular 15 year-old kid paid close attention to the lecture. Maybe he is unpopular and unsure of himself. This is not hard to conceive as such is the case for many teenagers. He thinks that doing what this guy tells him will make him ''cool'' or accepted. What happens when that kid is reported dead on the 11:00 news after having overdosed on ecstasy? What about your daughters who are being taught that the only way to be accepted is to have sex with as many boys as possible? Some kids do not have a strong parental system at home. Should they be subject to this guy's teachings when he could very well be the most influential person in their lives?
Paul said to ''flee sexual immorality'' for a reason (1 Corinthians 6:18). Not only do studies show the dangers of a life of promiscuity, unprotected sex, fornication and drug use. Paul also specifically addresses the sin of living a homosexual lifestyle and refers it to that which is ''shameful'' (Romans 1:26-27). Statistics show us that these lifestyles do not promote a healthy existence. The immorality that is being taught in public schools is an obvious effort to keeping our kids out of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Folks, some may be able to look at Colorado and say that Boulder is far away. Let us not be so foolish as to think that things like this cannot happen in local schools. Parents are you aware of what your school system is teaching? If you are not aware, FIND OUT! What are you doing to ensure your children will not be sitting ducks for the fiery darts of the wicked one?
Questions or comments? Visit the Forum.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Is the Mormon Card Played Out Yet?
May 30, 2007
2:28 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
As very few people know, Mitt Romney, a Republican from Mass. is campaigning for a presidential nomination. It does seem, however, that the people who have heard of him are obsessed with one fact about him. He is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, that is correct. He is a Mormon. The reason that this type of media attention is so irksome to me is because the more important issues are being overlooked do to this pseudo-obsession of imagining our country with a Mormon president. Recent studies have shown that 30% of the public would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate based on that fact alone.
According to Pew Forum, many misconceptions about the Mormon religion may have to be clarified when considering a Mormon candidate like Romney. ''Asked by Gallup in February what came to mind when thinking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest number of those surveyed (18%) named polygamy, a practice the church officially discontinued in 1890.''Keep in mind that 30% percent of the people who were asked stated that they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate based on that fact ALONE. It is saddening to me that so many people would be so inclined to base such an important decision on such faulty information. Is it not obvious that we should determine the best candidate for the presidency based on the issues that truly matter?
Before we get into that, however, I feel it necessary to clear up a few things. Though I am a supporter of Romney for his views on such issues as abortion and gay marriage (if there is such a thing), I do not agree with the doctrines of the Mormon Church. Most Mormons, if not all, believe that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion, was a prophet. It is taught by Mormons that Joseph Smith received a vision at the age of fourteen in which God told him that all churches were corrupt. Also, 3 years later, Smith received another vision in which was revealed ''the fullness of the Gospel'' by the angel Moroni, which would later be the doctrines of the Mormon faith. Mormons today use more than the Bible as scripture and consider these other sources to be ''the word of God'' This is a problem for several reasons. First, Paul wrote that the Bible was complete and sufficient (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This abolishes any need for further revelation of doctrine. Also, Paul wrote that even if an angel from heaven should preach another gospel, he should be accursed (Galatians 1:8). These, though very serious, are just a few of the problems with the beliefs of the Mormon Church.
Regarding Romney and the obstacles he is facing with his campaign, why do 30% of the public seem more concerned with the fact that he is a Mormon than with the issues which are relevant to his potential presidency? Why are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, (two candidates who both support abortion, stem cell research and granting ''civil unions'' to homosexuals) so popular compared to Romney simply because he is a Mormon. It is ludicrous. Especially when Romney is in favor of upholding strong morals regarding the issues like gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.
Again, it makes no sense whatsoever to support or refuse to support a candidate based on hearsay and faulty information. It is our responsibility, as the American people, to know the issues, know the candidates and then take advantage of our God given gift of a democratic process (Romans 13:1).
Questions or comments? Visit the Forum.
2:28 p.m.
By: Joshuah Ellis
As very few people know, Mitt Romney, a Republican from Mass. is campaigning for a presidential nomination. It does seem, however, that the people who have heard of him are obsessed with one fact about him. He is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, that is correct. He is a Mormon. The reason that this type of media attention is so irksome to me is because the more important issues are being overlooked do to this pseudo-obsession of imagining our country with a Mormon president. Recent studies have shown that 30% of the public would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate based on that fact alone.
According to Pew Forum, many misconceptions about the Mormon religion may have to be clarified when considering a Mormon candidate like Romney. ''Asked by Gallup in February what came to mind when thinking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest number of those surveyed (18%) named polygamy, a practice the church officially discontinued in 1890.''Keep in mind that 30% percent of the people who were asked stated that they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate based on that fact ALONE. It is saddening to me that so many people would be so inclined to base such an important decision on such faulty information. Is it not obvious that we should determine the best candidate for the presidency based on the issues that truly matter?
Before we get into that, however, I feel it necessary to clear up a few things. Though I am a supporter of Romney for his views on such issues as abortion and gay marriage (if there is such a thing), I do not agree with the doctrines of the Mormon Church. Most Mormons, if not all, believe that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion, was a prophet. It is taught by Mormons that Joseph Smith received a vision at the age of fourteen in which God told him that all churches were corrupt. Also, 3 years later, Smith received another vision in which was revealed ''the fullness of the Gospel'' by the angel Moroni, which would later be the doctrines of the Mormon faith. Mormons today use more than the Bible as scripture and consider these other sources to be ''the word of God'' This is a problem for several reasons. First, Paul wrote that the Bible was complete and sufficient (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This abolishes any need for further revelation of doctrine. Also, Paul wrote that even if an angel from heaven should preach another gospel, he should be accursed (Galatians 1:8). These, though very serious, are just a few of the problems with the beliefs of the Mormon Church.
Regarding Romney and the obstacles he is facing with his campaign, why do 30% of the public seem more concerned with the fact that he is a Mormon than with the issues which are relevant to his potential presidency? Why are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, (two candidates who both support abortion, stem cell research and granting ''civil unions'' to homosexuals) so popular compared to Romney simply because he is a Mormon. It is ludicrous. Especially when Romney is in favor of upholding strong morals regarding the issues like gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.
Again, it makes no sense whatsoever to support or refuse to support a candidate based on hearsay and faulty information. It is our responsibility, as the American people, to know the issues, know the candidates and then take advantage of our God given gift of a democratic process (Romans 13:1).
Questions or comments? Visit the Forum.
Women's Lib vs. the Bible
May 30, 2007
10:31 a.m.
by: Joshuah Ellis
On August 26, 1920, the United States of America passes the nineteenth amendment of the Constitution. This amendment declared that woman had the right to vote for political officials that are elected into office. This was a huge step in the favorable direction of all women. However, feminism has begun to wage war on many conservative Christians because of some of the commands in the Bible which seem anti-feminist. Should Biblical principles evolve with social circumstances?
Many religious groups have been attacked because of a passage which does not give women authority to teach or have authority over a man as it pertains to the public worship (1 Timothy 2:12). The first inclination of many is that it is unfair to say a man can preach but not a woman. The other is to chalk this command up to the culture of the period and move on with woman preachers. However, this command is not based on culture, it is based on the fact that it was Adam who was formed first and then Eve (1 Timothy 2:13). This does not speak of the capability of women; it is simply a command from God.
Another passage that seems anti-feminist to some is when the command is given for wives to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22). The reason that this is a problem is because many falsely feel that in order to be submissive, women but be worth less than men, and that is simply untrue! Paul even makes the point that neither man nor woman is of any higher necessity than the other (1 Corinthians 11:11-12). Rather than assume that if a woman is submissive, she is degrading herself, we should recognize that this is simply her role in marriage and in no way discounts her worth.
The assumption that conservative men are husbands and fathers who treat their wives and daughters as property rather than family is absurd. A godly man loves his wife as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25). This is to say that they love their wives sacrificially which in no way suggests he thinks of her as property. In fact Solomon wrote that a virtuous wife had a worth that is far above rubies. This is not someone who a man values as having less worth than himself, but rather someone for whom he would give himself.
It is unfortunate but true that many who believe Christianity is chauvinistic or anti-feminist feel the way they do because of the lack of understanding of the principles. Women who are Christians and adhere to these principles are in no way being cheated or degraded. In fact they are most likely going to receive blessings far greater than the world can offer. Finally, we need to recognize that the principles of the Bible are not subject to change simply because society changes. Regardless of what is popular the Word is the standard by which we will be judged.
Questions or comments? Visit the Forum.
10:31 a.m.
by: Joshuah Ellis
On August 26, 1920, the United States of America passes the nineteenth amendment of the Constitution. This amendment declared that woman had the right to vote for political officials that are elected into office. This was a huge step in the favorable direction of all women. However, feminism has begun to wage war on many conservative Christians because of some of the commands in the Bible which seem anti-feminist. Should Biblical principles evolve with social circumstances?
Many religious groups have been attacked because of a passage which does not give women authority to teach or have authority over a man as it pertains to the public worship (1 Timothy 2:12). The first inclination of many is that it is unfair to say a man can preach but not a woman. The other is to chalk this command up to the culture of the period and move on with woman preachers. However, this command is not based on culture, it is based on the fact that it was Adam who was formed first and then Eve (1 Timothy 2:13). This does not speak of the capability of women; it is simply a command from God.
Another passage that seems anti-feminist to some is when the command is given for wives to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22). The reason that this is a problem is because many falsely feel that in order to be submissive, women but be worth less than men, and that is simply untrue! Paul even makes the point that neither man nor woman is of any higher necessity than the other (1 Corinthians 11:11-12). Rather than assume that if a woman is submissive, she is degrading herself, we should recognize that this is simply her role in marriage and in no way discounts her worth.
The assumption that conservative men are husbands and fathers who treat their wives and daughters as property rather than family is absurd. A godly man loves his wife as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25). This is to say that they love their wives sacrificially which in no way suggests he thinks of her as property. In fact Solomon wrote that a virtuous wife had a worth that is far above rubies. This is not someone who a man values as having less worth than himself, but rather someone for whom he would give himself.
It is unfortunate but true that many who believe Christianity is chauvinistic or anti-feminist feel the way they do because of the lack of understanding of the principles. Women who are Christians and adhere to these principles are in no way being cheated or degraded. In fact they are most likely going to receive blessings far greater than the world can offer. Finally, we need to recognize that the principles of the Bible are not subject to change simply because society changes. Regardless of what is popular the Word is the standard by which we will be judged.
Questions or comments? Visit the Forum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)